This could be a game changer
 

I'm all for reducing airborne pollutants as long as it makes sense from a market and economic perspective. An example is hydrogen as a fuel source.

Current technology requires sourcing hydrogen from fossil fuels. While there is an abundant source of hydrogen in seawater, the process of breaking seawater down to hydrogen creates ammonia as a by-product. Not good from an environmental perspective. The high salt content also tends to corrode the equipment involved in the process.

Now comes research out of Australia where scientists have developed a novel process that cheaply converts seawater to hydrogen without the nasty by-products. I don't pretend to understand all of the chemistry behind this process. The process has been patented, though, and I'd love to see some start-ups take this and run with it.

A cheap, clean and nearly unlimited energy source. This could be a game-changer.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...smll.202207310

People are always claiming amazing technological breakthroughs, especially regarding fuels and energy. I'm very skeptical unless/until it goes bona-fide full-scale commercial.

We can generate hydrogen from current technology and we do not need fossil fuels to generate electricity. Solar power is readily available.

I am a Chemical engineer and will try and read about this technique later, but even if this is viable, it will be decades away. A patent does not mean much, its is not for the technology itself but the individual claims within it.

I am quite suspicious of the right wing pushing fuel cell technology, especially since none of the automotive companies are willing to jump on the band wagon. I personally do think that fuel cells are better suited for heavy vehicles, especially those that burn diesel.

GM made the first fuel cell based vehicle in 1966 and nothing much since then.

BMW made a fuel cell car around 2006 for just two years and abandoned it.

Toyota Mirai came out in 2014 and just 21K cars have been sold since then.

Just no market for fuel cell based personal vehicles since there is no infrastructure for distribution, nor will anything come soon. Hydrogen is explosive and dangerous to transport and this is why I believe it is only beneficial for commercial vehicles with their own infrastructure.

But the right wing keeps pushing it as an alternative to EV (passenger vehicles) because nothing can or will be done in the next decade or so (if at all).

Quite interesting that the right wing loves Musk but hates Tesla, perhaps they have not made the connection.

The "right wing" is "pushing" hydrogen as an alternative? Wow. I take it you've polled these Australian researchers to confirm their political leanings? :rolleyes:

Its senseless to refer to energy production from any source as a "right wing" or "left wing" solution. I have no idea what you're trying to accomplish with the "right wing" reference.

Although not where there is significant cloud cover on a regular basis.

A hydrogen generating plant can be built in the sunbelt states. Tear down Disneyworld in Florida and build a hydrogen plant there. :D

Most new power generation is from solar since they can go up rapidly and requires minimal maintenance and worst/best of all, requires no labor. There is a huge solar farm on the outskirts of Reno, thousands taking up an entire hillside.

Requires a water source anywhere for elecyrolysis, and best for excess energy generation storage due to process insertion losses compared to direct charging.

We humans are good at overcoming obstacles. It's what we do. In less than seventy years we went from the first powered flight to landing on the moon.

https://i.imgflip.com/3anknd.jpg

As long as we keep doing science, and the system supplies the capital. My point was just that it's hard to pick a winner based on the claims in a scientific paper. There are millions of papers, some of them honest and not over-hyped....